Twenty-four hours after the U.S. compound in Benghazi was attacked and our ambassador murdered, the tragedy seemed more likely to help President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign than to damage it.

The White House already enjoyed more public credibility on foreign policy than on almost any other issue. When Mitt Romney reacted to the attack with a partisan broadside, portraying a news release sent out by the Cairo embassy before any violence began as a White House apology to the attackers, the president’s path forward seemed clear. He would be disciplined and careful, show anger and steel but also coolness under pressure, and let the rally-round-the-flag effect do its natural work.

What happened instead was very strange. Having first repudiated the embassy’s apology to Muslims offended by a movie impugning their prophet, the Obama administration decided to embrace the apology’s premise and insist the movie was the crucial factor in the Sept. 11 anniversary violence.

For days after the attack, as it became clearer that the Benghazi violence was an al-Qaida operation rather than a protest, White House officials continued to stress the importance of the “hateful” and “disgusting” video, and its supposed role as a catalyst for what Susan Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, insisted was a spontaneous attack.

This narrative was pushed on Sunday morning programs, on late-night talk shows and at news conferences, by everyone from Rice to Hillary Clinton to the president himself. When Obama spoke at the United Nations shortly after the attacks, the video was referenced six times in the text; al-Qaida was referenced only once.

Eventually, the White House let the video slip quietly out of its public rhetoric, and refocused on terrorism instead. But everything else that’s come out about Benghazi has seemed much more damning because the administration practiced a strange denial at the outset. The missed warnings, the weaknesses in security, the drip-drip of detail unspigoted by reporting and congressional hearings — all of it would have been received differently if the White House hadn’t spent a week acting as if it had something big to lose by calling terrorism terrorism.

What explains this self-defeating strategy? One possibility is that Romney’s oft-repeated “apology tour” charge is right, and this White House can’t resist the urge to appease our enemies when America comes under attack. But Romney’s portrait of Obama as Neville Chamberlain has always been just a caricature, and nobody who watched the Democratic convention should doubt Obama’s comfort wrapping himself in the mantle of the war on terror.

Another, more plausible possibility is that precisely because this White House wants to be seen as tough on terrorism, it’s loath to acknowledge the possibility that it doesn’t have al-Qaida completely on the run.

But even this seems insufficient to explain the White House’s Benghazi blundering. Surely acknowledging the persistence of al-Qaida wouldn’t undercut the administration’s (justifiable) boasts about having taken out its leader. Indeed, if Osama bin Laden’s organization is still with us, why wouldn’t Americans want to keep the president who gave the Abbottabad order so he could finish the job?

Perhaps, then, the real explanation for the White House’s anxiety about calling the embassy attack an act of terror has less to do with the “who” than with the “where.” This wasn’t al-Qaida striking just anywhere: It was al-Qaida striking in Libya, a country where the Obama White House launched a not-precisely-constitutional military intervention with a not-precisely-clear connection to the national interest.

In a long profile of Obama published last month by Vanity Fair, Michael Lewis suggested that the president feared the consequences of even a single casualty during the Libyan incursion, lest it create a narrative about how “a president elected to extract us from a war in one Arab country got Americans killed in another.”

How much more, then, might the president fear a narrative about how our Libyan intervention helped create a power vacuum in which terrorists groups can operate with impunity? That’s clearly happened in nearby Mali, where the ripple effects from Moammar Gadhafi’s overthrow have helped empower an al-Qaida affiliate. In this context, it’s easy to see why the administration would hope that the Benghazi attack were just spontaneous mob violence rather than a sign of al-Qaida’s growing presence in postintervention Libya as well.

The only good news for Obama in this mess is the fact that Romney, always intent on projecting toughness, hasn’t attacked the original decision to go to war in Libya or tied the intervention itself to al-Qaida’s North African advances.

If the Republican nominee were less reflexively hawkish, the White House might be facing the more comprehensive critique it deserves, and the story wouldn’t be about just the specifics of Benghazi but also the possibility that Obama’s entire policy in the region has put American interests and lives at risk.

Ross Douthat writes a column for the New York Times.

Perhaps, then, the real explanation for the White House’s anxiety about calling the embassy attack an act of terror has less to do with the “who” than with the “where.” This wasn’t al-Qaida striking just anywhere: It was al-Qaida striking in Libya, a country where the Obama White House launched a not-precisely-constitutional military intervention with a not-precisely-clear connection to the national interest.

As you comment, please be respectful of other commenters and other viewpoints. Our goal with article comments is to provide a space for civil, informative and constructive conversations. We reserve the right to remove any comment we deem to be defamatory, rude, insulting to others, hateful, off-topic or reckless to the community. See our full terms of use here.

More in Opinion

THE SHOWBOAT’S FUTURE Wanted: a management partner who will “creatively explore new programming and service opportunities” at a unique St. Paul riverfront facility. It’s the former Minnesota Centennial Showboat at Harriet Island Regional Park, and the city’s Parks and Recreation Department says its call for ideas is the “opportunity to re-imagine what this riverboat could be.” The department is seeking...

TEACHING USEFUL SKILLS Schools, are you listening? Joe Soucheray’s Dec. 1 column was brilliant. (“What’s next? Fancy signs in lunchrooms telling kids to chew?) Taking students with disciplinary problems and giving them a useful way to be productive, even teaching them a skill they could possibly use for future employment, is exactly what our schools should be doing. Snow and...

TRUMP’S NEXT CHAPTER Atticus Finch, the beloved father and lawyer in Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird,” is one of literature’s most admirable characters, defending a black man accused of raping a white woman in a bigoted Southern town. But what has come to be considered Lee’s original manuscript, “Go Set a Watchman,” which was published in 2015 after lying...

Though the presidential campaign did not focus much attention on it, the federal debt confronting President-elect Donald Trump is greater, as a percentage of the economy, than at any time since Harry Truman’s World War II term of office. Trump more than Democrat Hillary Clinton did give lip service but few specifics about the size of the growing national debt...

The best way to solve the conundrum of 11 million undocumented immigrants who are living, working and contributing to America right now has a name: “245(i).” Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is a law that enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress in its 13 years of existence. It is still on the books, though it expired in 2001...

St. Paul’s Right of Way (ROW) assessment program has certainly had a rough few months. First, nonprofits succeeded in getting the Minnesota Supreme Court to declare the assessment a tax subject to constitutional restrictions on taxing nonprofits. In a rare moment of ideological Kumbaya, conservative and progressive policy organizations joined hands to argue against it at the Supreme Court, as...